"Ancient Relationships, Modern Intellectual Horizons: The Practical Challenges and Possibilities of...

Archaeologies of Text

Joukowsky Institute Publications

1. KOINE: Mediterranean Studies in Honor of R. Ross Holloway EditedbyDerekCountsandAnthonyTuck2. Re-Presenting the Past: Archaeology through Text and Image EditedbySheilaBondeandStephenHouston3. Locating the Sacred: Theoretical Approaches to the Emplacement of Religion EditedbyClaudiaMoserandCeceliaFeldman4. Violence and Civilization: Studies of Social Violence in History and Prehistory EditedbyRoderickCampbell5. Of Rocks and Water: Towards an Archaeology of Place EditedbyÖmürHarmanşah6. Archaeologies of Text: Archaeology, Technology, and Ethics EditedbyMatthewT.RutzandMoragKersel

Oxbow BooksOxford and Philadelphia

edited by

Matthew T. Rutz and Morag M. Kersel

Archaeologies of TextArchaeology, Technology, and Ethics

Joukowsky Institute Publication 6

General series editor: Prof. John F. CherryJoukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient WorldBrown University, Box 1837/60 George Street, Providence, RI 02912, USA

Published in the United Kingdom in 2014 byOXBOW BOOKS10 Hythe Bridge Street, Oxford OX1 2EW

and in the United States by OXBOW BOOKS908 Darby Road, Havertown, PA 19083

Published by Oxbow Books on behalf of the Joukowsky Institute

© Brown University, Oxbow Books and the individual contributors 2014

Paperback Edition: ISBN 978-1-78297-766-7Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78297-767-4

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher in writing.

Printed in the United Kingdom by Hobbs the Printers Ltd, Totton, Hampshire

For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact:

UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOxbow Books Oxbow BooksTelephone (01865) 241249 Telephone (800) 791-9354Fax (01865) 794449 Fax (610) 853-9146Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow

Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group

Frontcover: Cuneiform tablet PF 0694 (see p. 17, Figure 2.3) with Elamite text on the obverse (top left) and on the reverse (top right) an impression of seal PFS 0093*, inscribed with name of Cyrus of Anzan, son of Teispes (images courtesy of Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, University of Chicago); detail (bottom) from the Greek inscription on the Rosetta Stone (EA24, © Trustees of the British Museum).

Backcover: Excerpt from Mayan hieroglyphic inscriptions on Copan Stela 10 (see p. 37, Figure 3.2a); drawing by Nicholas P. Carter after field sketches by David Stuart (images courtesy of Nicholas P. Carter).

Contents

1. Introduction: No Discipline is an Island 1 MoragM.KerselandMatthewT.Rutz

2. Case in Point: The Persepolis Fortification Archive 14 MatthewW.Stolper

3. Space, Time, and Texts: A Landscape Approach to the Classic Maya Hieroglyphic Record 31 NicholasP.Carter

4. Now You See It, Now You Don’t: The Dynamics of Archaeological and Epigraphic Landscapes

from Coptic Egypt 59 ScottBucking

5. Articulating Neo-Assyrian Imperialism at Tell Tayinat 80 TimothyP.Harrison

6. The Archaeology of Mesopotamian Extispicy: Modeling Divination in the Old Babylonian Period 97

MatthewT.Rutz

7. The Ernest K. Smith Collection of Shang Divination Inscriptions at Columbia University and the Evidence

for Scribal Training at Anyang 121 AdamSmith

8. Tracing Networks of Cuneiform Scholarship with Oracc, GKAB, and Google Earth 142 EleanorRobson

9. Ancient Relationships, Modern Intellectual Horizons: The Practical Challenges and Possibilities of Encoding Greek and Latin Inscriptions 164 LisaAndersonandHeidiWendt

10. Forging History: From Antiquity to the Modern Period 176 ChristopherA.Rollston

Contentsvi

11. WikiLeaks, Text, and Archaeology: The Case of the Schøyen Incantation Bowls 198 NeilJ.BrodieandMoragM.Kersel

12. Do Restrictions on Publication of Undocumented Texts Promote Legitimacy? 214 PattyGerstenblith

13. Publishing Undocumented Texts: Editorial Perspectives 227 JohnF.Cherry

Index 245

List of Figures

2.1 Photograph of the site of Persepolis. 2.2 Plan of the site of Persepolis. 2.3 Elamite document from the Persepolis Fortification Archive. 2.4 Aramaic document from the Persepolis Fortification Archive. 2.5 Uninscribed, sealed document from the Persepolis Fortification Archive. 2.6 Unique Old Persian document from the Persepolis Fortification Archive. 2.7 Screenshot from the OCHRE presentation of Persepolis Fortification

Archive Project. 3.1 A map of the Maya area, showing sites mentioned in Chapter 3. 3.2a Passage from Copan Stela 10 alluding to events at the “Copan” sky

and cave/outcropping at Uxwitik. 3.2b Passage from Copan Stela 12 naming “Great Earth, the Edge of the Sky,

the First Hearth Place cave/outcropping”. 3.2c Passage from Copan Stela 2 naming “Great Earth”. 3.2d Passage from the Main Panel of the Temple of the Cross, Palenque:

“The hearth is changed at the Edge of the Sky, at the First Hearth Place”. 3.2e Passage from Quirigua Stela C reading “It happened at the Edge of the Sky,

at the First Hearth Place,” in reference to the planting of a mythological stone.

3.2f Ik’wahynal mythological toponym from a Late Classic polychrome vessel. 3.2g Mythological toponyms ik’wahynal and ik’nahbnal from a Late Classic

codex-style vessel. 3.3a Passage from Calakmul Stela 114 referring to a “youth, the Chiik Nahb

lord”. 3.3b Passage from Naranjo Hieroglyphic Stairway 1 (originally from Caracol)

naming Yuknoom “Head” as “the Kaanal lord at Uxte’tuun, he of Chiik Nahb”.

3.3c “Chiik Nahb lord” on Calakmul Monument 6. 3.3d “Chiik Nahb wall” from the southern façade of Calakmul’s North

Acropolis. 3.3e Passage from an unprovenanced panel from the region of Cancuen.

List of Figuresviii

3.3f Passage from La Corona Panel 1A reading “Traveled to Chiik Nahb the elder brother person, the youth, K’ihnich Je’ Yookil[?]”.

3.4a Early, innovative synharmonic spellings of the word for “cave, outcropping” at Copan: CH’EN-ne, from Copan Stela 12.

3.4b CH’EN-ne, from Copan Stela 2. Standard, disharmonic spellings of the same word.

3.4c CH’E’N-na, from Copan Stela 10, contemporaneous with Stelae 2 and 12. 3.4d CH’E’N-na, from Tikal Stela 5. 3.4e Standard spelling of the word for “image, person, self ” as BAAH-hi,

from the central panel of the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque. 3.4f tu-BAAJ-ji for t-ubaaj, “to his image,” from Copan Stela E. 3.4g u-BAAJ-ji, “his image,” from Copan Stela P. 4.1 Map of Egypt, showing sites mentioned in Chapter 4. 4.2 Northeastern corner of central court, upper terrace, Hatshepsut temple,

Deir el-Bahri. 4.3 Butcher’s Court looking southwest towards Room Z, Seti I temple, Abydos. 4.4 Architrave with Coptic religious texts, Butcher’s Court, Seti I temple,

Abydos. 4.5 Coptic-period niche in eastern wall of Tomb 29, Beni Hasan. 4.6 Coptic-period graffiti and holes, northeastern corner of Room Z, Seti I

temple, Abydos. 4.7 Plastered installation in northeastern corner of Butcher’s Court, Seti I

temple, Abydos. 4.8 Daniel in the lion’s den graffito on eastern wall of Tomb 23, Beni Hasan. 5.1 Map of the Amuq Plain showing the location of Tell Tayinat and other

principal settlements. 5.2 Topographic map of Tell Tayinat overlaid on a CORONA satellite image

of the site. 5.3 Plan of Building XVI, Tell Tayinat. 5.4 Plan of Building XVI, Tell Tayinat, showing the distribution of artifacts

and tablets in its inner sanctum. 5.5 Plan of the Assyrian “Sacred Precinct” at Tell Tayinat, showing Buildings II

and XVI. 6.1 Old Babylonian liver model allegedly from Sippar. 6.2 Old Babylonian omen compendium allegedly from Sippar. 6.3 Old Babylonian omen report allegedly from Sippar. 7.1 Scapula with divination records and scribal training exercises.

ixList of Figures

7.2a Divination cracks, records, and exercises on HJ27456: divination cracks (obverse) and notches (reverse).

7.2b Divination cracks, records, and exercises on HJ27456: inscription units. 7.2c Divination cracks, records, and exercises on HJ27456: sequence of dated

records and copies. 7.3 Divination records and trainee copies on HJ27456. 8.1 The scholarly knowledge network around seventh-century Kalhu. 8.2 The scholarly knowledge network around seventh-century Huzirina. 8.3 The scholarly knowledge network around fifth-century Uruk. 9.1 The epitaph of Philargyrus L. Sullae. 11.1 Aramaic incantation bowl, British Museum. 11.2 Incantation bowl for sale in Antiquities Shop, Jerusalem. 11.3 Incantation bowl for sale in Antiquities Shop, Jerusalem.

List of Tables

6.1 Provenience and number of omen compendia, early second millennium B.C. 6.2 Provenience and number of omen reports, early second millennium B.C. 6.3 Provenience and number of clay models, early second millennium B.C. 7.1 Known joins involving items from E.K. Smith’s collection. 13.1 Sample questions posed to editors about their journals’ publication policies. 13.2 Journals included in the survey and their editors.

Notes on Contributors

Lisa Anderson (Ph.D., Brown University, 2009) is Frederick Randolph Grace Assistant Curator of Ancient Art in the Harvard Art Museums and former project manager of the U.S. Epigraphy Project, Brown University.

Neil J. Brodie (Ph.D., University of Liverpool, 1992) is Senior Research Fellow in the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research at the University of Glasgow. Dr Brodie is an archaeologist by training and has held positions at the British School at Athens, the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at the University of Cambridge, where he was Research Director of the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre, and Stanford University’s Archaeology Center. He was co-author (with Jennifer Doole and Peter Watson) of the report StealingHistory (2000), commissioned by the Museums Association and ICOM-UK to advise upon the illicit trade in cultural material. He also co-edited (with Morag M. Kersel, Christina Luke, and Kathryn Walker Tubb) Archaeology,CulturalHeritage,andtheAntiquitiesTrade (2006), (with Kathryn Walker Tubb) Illicit Antiquities: The Theft ofCultureandtheExtinctionofArchaeology (2002), and (with Jennifer Doole and Colin Renfrew) TradeinIllicitAntiquities:TheDestructionoftheWorld’sArchaeologicalHeritage (2001). He has worked on archaeological projects in the United Kingdom, Jordan, and Greece, where his work is ongoing.

Scott Bucking (Ph.D., University of Cambridge, 1998) is Associate Professor, Department of History, DePaul University. Professor Bucking’s interests include the archaeology and epigraphy of late antique Egypt and Palestine, literacy and education in the ancient world, Greek and Coptic papyrology, and early Christianity and monasticism. His publications have appeared in the journals PublicArchaeology, PalestineExcavationQuarterly, ZeitschriftfürPapyrologieundEpigraphik, and JournalofCopticStudies, and he is author of PracticeMakesPerfect:P.Cotsen-Princeton1andtheTrainingofScribesinByzantine Egypt (2011). He has two ongoing field projects: the Byzantine Cave Dwelling Project at Avdat, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in the Negev Desert of Israel, and the Beni Hasan in Late Antiquity Project in Middle Egypt, near Minya. He also currently serves on the Board of Trustees of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem.

xiContributors

Nicholas P. Carter (Ph.D., Brown University, 2014) is Adjunct Lecturer, Department of Anthropology, Brown University. Since 2006 he has worked with the El Zotz Archaeological Project, which has been excavating at the ancient Maya site of El Zotz in central Petén, Guatemala, and directs the Sierra Mazateca Archaeological Project. His research interests include anthropological archaeology; the origins, nature, and disintegration of complex polities; linguistic and semiotic anthropology; writing systems; ancient economies; and ceramic analysis. He has worked on the non-calendrical component of the Zapotec hieroglyphic writing system, as well as the networks of cultural and political influence behind the palaeographic and linguistic trends in Classic Maya inscriptions.

John F. Cherry (Ph.D., Southampton University, 1981) is Joukowsky Family Professor of Archaeology and Professor of Classics, Brown University. His teaching, research interests, and publications are eclectic and reflect a background in Classics, Anthropology, and Archaeology, as well as educational training on both sides of the Atlantic, and archaeological fieldwork experience in Great Britain, the United States, Yugoslav Macedonia, Italy, Armenia, and (especially) Greece and (currently) Montserrat. He is co-author (with A. Bernard Knapp) of ProvenienceStudies andBronzeAgeCyprus:Production,Exchange and Politico-economic Change (1994), as well as co-editor (with Lauren E. Talalay and Despina Margomenou) of Prehistorians Round thePond:ReflectionsonAegeanPrehistoryasaDiscipline (2005), (with Susan E. Alcock) Side-by-sideSurvey:ComparativeRegionalStudiesintheMediterraneanWorld (2004), (with Susan E. Alcock and Jaś Elsner) Pausanias:TravelandMemory in Roman Greece (2001), and (with Colin Renfrew) Peer PolityInteractionandSocio-politicalChange (1986). He has been co-editor of the JournalofMediterraneanArchaeology for almost 25 years and is the General Series Editor for JoukowskyInstitutePublications.

Patty Gerstenblith (Ph.D., Harvard University, 1977; J.D., Northwestern University School of Law, 1983) is Distinguished Research Professor of Law at DePaul University and director of its Center for Art, Museum and Cultural Heritage Law. She is founding President of the Lawyers’ Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation (2005–2011), a Director of the U.S. Committee of the Blue Shield, and Co-Chair of the American Bar Association’s Art and Cultural Heritage Law Committee. In 2011 she was appointed by President Obama to serve as the Chair of the President’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee in the U.S. Department of State, on which she had previously served as a public representative in the Clinton administration. From 1995 to 2002, she was editor-in-chief of the InternationalJournalofCulturalProperty.

Contributorsxii

Her publications include the casebook Art,CulturalHeritage and theLaw (2004; 3rd edition, 2012) and numerous articles. Before joining the DePaul faculty, Professor Gerstenblith clerked for the Honorable Richard D. Cudahy of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Timothy P. Harrison (Ph.D., University of Chicago, 1995) is Chair of the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto. Professor Harrison is the Director of the Tell Madaba Archaeological Project (Jordan) and the Tayinat Archaeological Project (Turkey) as well as a former President of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR). He is the principal author of Megiddo3:FinalReport on theStratumVIExcavations (2004), as well as numerous articles.

Morag M. Kersel (Ph.D., University of Cambridge, 2006) is Assistant Professor of Anthropology, DePaul University. Professor Kersel is Co-Director of two ongoing projects: Galilee Prehistory Project (Israel); “Follow the Pots” Project (Jordan). Her research interests include the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age of the eastern Mediterranean and Levant, cultural heritage protection, the built environment, object biographies, museums, and archaeological tourism. Her work combines archaeological, archival, and oral history research in order to understand the efficacy of cultural heritage law in protecting archaeological landscapes from looting. She is co-author (with Christina Luke) of U.S.CulturalDiplomacyandArchaeology:SoftPower,HardHeritage (2013).

Eleanor Robson (D.Phil., Wolfson College, University of Oxford, 1995) is Reader in Ancient Near Eastern History in the Department of History, University College London. She was Co-Director (with Steve Tinney) of the Arts and Humanities Research Council-funded research project TheGeographyofKnowledgeinAssyriaandBabylonia (2007–2012) and is currently the British Institute for the Study of Iraq’s voluntary Chair of Council. Dr Robson is the author or co-author of several books on Mesopotamian culture and the history of mathematics, most recently MathematicsinAncientIraq:ASocialHistory (2008), which in 2011 won the History of Science Society’s Pfizer Prize for the Best Scholarly Book. She co-edited (with Jacqueline Stedall) TheOxfordHandbookoftheHistoryofMathematics (2009) and (with Karen Radner) TheOxfordHandbookofCuneiformCulture (2011).

Christopher A. Rollston (Ph.D., The Johns Hopkins University, 1999) is Associate Professor of Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in the Department of Classical and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations,

xiiiContributors

The George Washington University. Professor Rollston is the editor of the journal MAARAV:AJournalfortheStudyofNorthwestSemiticLanguagesandLiteratures and co-editor (with Eric Cline) of the Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research. He was educated as a critical historian and a philologist of ancient Near Eastern languages, with Northwest Semitic epigraphy, ancient scribal education, literacy in the ancient Levant, Hebrew Bible, and Second Temple Jewish Literature as his strongest emphases. He works in more than a dozen ancient and modern languages, especially the biblical languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), as well as Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Ammonite, Moabite, and Sahidic Coptic. He has published widely in the area of Northwest Semitic epigraphy and is author of WritingandLiteracyintheWorldofAncientIsrael:EpigraphicEvidencefromtheIronAge (2010), which received the Frank Moore Cross Epigraphy Prize of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

Matthew T. Rutz (Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, 2008) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Egyptology and Assyriology, Brown University. Professor Rutz works in the field of Assyriology with emphasis on Akkadian (Babylonian/Assyrian) and Sumerian documents from the late second and first millennia B.C., the social and political history of the Late Bronze Age, Babylonian literary and scholastic texts from the site of Nippur (Iraq), divination and medicine in ancient Mesopotamia, the textual transmission of cuneiform literature, and the study of ancient texts as archaeological objects. He is the author of BodiesofKnowledgeinAncientMesopotamia:TheDivinersofLateBronzeAgeEmarandTheirTabletCollection (2013).

Adam Smith (Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles, 2008) is Assistant Professor in the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Pennsylvania, where he is also Assistant Curator in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology’s Asian Section. Professor Smith’s ongoing research focuses on the emergence and evolution of the Chinese writing system during the late second and first millennia B.C., and the early literate activities with which it was associated. He is currently working on a monograph on the topic of divination and its written record in early China.

Matthew W. Stolper (Ph.D., University of Michigan, 1974) is Emeritus Professor of Assyriology and John A. Wilson Professor Emeritus of Oriental Studies in the Oriental Institute and the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of the University of Chicago. Professor Stolper has worked on Achaemenid Babylonian history and texts as well as on Elamite

Contributorsxiv

history and texts. As Director of the Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, his efforts are focused on Achaemenid administrative records excavated by the Oriental Institute in 1933 at Persepolis, the imperial residence in the Persian homeland, to be published in electronic and conventional forms. He is author of Tall-iMalyan,I:ElamiteAdministrativeTexts(1972–1974) (1984), (with Elizabeth Carter) Elam: Surveys of Political History and Archaeology (1984), EntrepreneursandEmpire:TheMurašûArchive,theMurašûFirm,andPersian Rule in Babylonia (1985), Late Achaemenid, Early Macedonian andEarlySeleucidRecordsofDepositandRelatedTexts (1993), and (with Veysel Donbaz) IstanbulMurašûTexts (1997), as well as numerous articles.

Heidi Wendt (Ph.D., Brown University, 2013) is Assistant Professor in the Departments of Religion, Philosophy, and Classics, Wright State University. Her interdisciplinary research focuses on religion in the Roman Empire, including early Christianity, and the activities of freelance religious experts and their significance for the emergence of Christians in the first century. Professor Wendt is interested in relationships between Roman and provincial religions, particularly in Roman strategies for negotiating the “foreign” ritual practices and spaces with which they came into contact through imperial expansion. In 2011 she was awarded the Emeline Hill Richardson Pre-Doctoral Rome Prize in Ancient Studies from the American Academy in Rome. She has worked on archaeological projects and conducted research throughout Italy, Greece, and Turkey.

Contributor Addresses

Lisa AndersonDivision of Asian and Mediterranean

ArtHarvard Art Museums32 Quincy StCambridge, MA [email protected]

Neil J. Brodie Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice

ResearchUniversity of GlasgowIvy Lodge, 63 Gibson StGlasgow G12 [email protected]

Scott BuckingDepartment of HistoryDePaul University2320 N. Kenmore AveChicago, IL [email protected]

Nicholas P. CarterDepartment of AnthropologyBrown University, Box 1921Providence, RI [email protected]

John F. CherryJoukowsky Institute for Archaeology

and the Ancient WorldBrown University, Box 183760 George StProvidence, RI [email protected]

Patty GerstenblithDePaul University College of Law25 E. Jackson BlvdChicago, IL [email protected]

Timothy P. HarrisonDepartment of Near and Middle

Eastern CivilizationsUniversity of Toronto4 Bancroft AveToronto, ONCanada M5S [email protected]

Morag M. KerselDepartment of AnthropologyDePaul University2343 North Racine AveChicago, IL [email protected]

Eleanor RobsonDepartment of HistoryUniversity College LondonGower StLondon WC1E 6BTUnited [email protected]

Christopher A. RollstonDepartment of Classical and Near

Eastern Languages and CivilizationsThe George Washington University801 22nd St NW, Phillips Hall 345Washington, DC [email protected]

Contributorsxvi

Matthew T. RutzDepartment of Egyptology

and AssyriologyBrown University, Box 18992 Prospect StProvidence, RI [email protected]

Adam SmithUniversity of Pennsylvania Museum

of Archaeology and Anthropology3260 South St, Room 510Philadelphia, PA [email protected]

Matthew W. StolperOriental InstituteUniversity of Chicago1155 E 58th StChicago, IL [email protected]

Heidi WendtReligion, Philosophy, and ClassicsWright State UniversityMillett Hall 3703640 Colonel Glenn HwyDayton, OH [email protected]

Acknowledgments

This volume grew out of a symposium hosted at Brown University on December 3–5, 2010, the purpose of which was to explore different perspectives on the interplay of archaeological and textual material from the ancient world – hence archaeologies of text. For the symposium we invited scholars who routinely engage with the archaeology of texts – archaeologists, classicists, epigraphers, papyrologists, philologists, Assyriologists, Egyptologists, Mayanists, ancient historians – to discuss current theoretical and practical problems that have grown out of their work on early inscriptions and archaeology, and we warmly thank all contributors and participants for their interest, energy, and thoughtful engagement with this perennially relevant, promising, and vexing topic. Our hope was that the variety and specificity of perspectives and methods under discussion would catalyze cross-disciplinary exchange as well as underscore the importance of reevaluating the well-established disciplinary practices and assumptions within our respective fields. We leave it to the reader to decide if we succeeded in our approach, even if only asymptotically. The symposium was generously supported by several institutional sponsors that we are only too happy to thank: the Department of Egyptology and Assyriology (James P. Allen, then Chair), the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World (Susan E. Alcock, Director), the Program in Early Cultures, and The Colver Lectureship Fund at Brown University, and the Department of Anthropology at DePaul University. Additional funding for publishing this volume was provided by the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World and the Humanities Research Fund of Brown University’s Office of the Vice President for Research. Institutional support is essential, but it is people who give vitality and meaning to symposia such as ours. Over and above the authors of the individual chapters included herein and the many people who came to Brown to participate in the symposium, we gladly acknowledge a number of others by name. Bruce Zuckerman of the University of Southern California gave a stimulating presentation at the symposium, but due to personal reasons he was unable to contribute a chapter to this book. Sue Alcock and Jim Allen were pivotal in making the symposium a success. Claire Benson,

Acknowledgementsxviii

Diana Richardson, and Sarah Sharpe provided enthusiastic and capable administrative and logistical support. Doctoral students from a number of programs at Brown University served as session chairs: Bryan Brinkman, Kathryn Howley, Jessica Nowlin, Timothy Sandiford, Julia Troche, and Zackary Wainer. Subsequently a number of Brown graduate students (some of whom were also chairs) took a graduate seminar that grew out of the symposium: Emanuela Bocancea, Müge Durusu-Tanrıöver, Katherine Harrington, Ian Randall, Timothy Sandiford, and Alexander Smith (Archaeology and the Ancient World); Scott DiGiulio and Christopher Geggie (Classics); Christian Casey, Kathryn Howley, and Julia Troche (Egyptology); M. Willis Monroe and Zackary Wainer (Assyriology). Clive Vella, Ian Randall, and Magdelyne Christakis assisted with editing some of the individual chapters. John Cherry must also be singled out for a final word of thanks. He was a supporter of this enterprise from its inception and later took on a number of roles: as participant in the symposium, as thoughtful contributor to the volume, and as attentive series editor.

— 9 —

Ancient Relationships, Modern Intellectual Horizons:The Practical Challenges and Possibilities of Encoding Greek and Latin Inscriptions

Lisa Anderson and Heidi Wendt

Introduction to the U.S. Epigraphy ProjectThe U.S. Epigraphy Project (http://usepigraphy.brown.edu) was started in 1995 at Rutgers University by John Bodel (then at Rutgers) and Steven Tracy (then director of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens). The first manifestation of the project was a print volume by the project directors, Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the USA: A Checklist, which appeared in 1997. The Checklist provided short entries on the epigraphic collections, including some 2,300 inscriptions (720 Greek and 1,575 Latin) reported to Bodel and Tracy that were held by museums, universities, private individuals, and other institutions throughout the United States. Inasmuch as all ancient Greek and Latin inscriptions in the U.S. are originally from elsewhere in the world, this publication aimed to track what has come to this country and to follow inscriptions that have been split into several different collections.

While the Checklist brought together material whose historical, and in some cases even topographical, relationships were either not well known or had been lost, its digital supplement, in the form of a web-based project at Rutgers, permitted fuller recording and distribution of information about these texts. In 2003, the U.S. Epigraphy Project (hereafter, USEP) came to Brown University with Bodel, where it was converted from its original HyperText Markup Language (HTML) markup to a more detailed and versatile eXtensible Markup Language (XML) format by the Brown University Library’s Scholarly Technology Group (now Center for Digital Scholarship), with the help of classics and archaeology graduate students. This painstaking process also provided an opportunity to discover and correct errors and inconsistencies in existing scholarly publications of the materials. More inscriptions have been

9 Ancient Relationships 165

added to the database by graduate student epigraphists under the supervision of John Bodel, and over 1,000 of these are illustrated with photographs and drawings provided by the owners. The present archives comprise digital files of texts, images, and metadata for nearly 3,000 inscribed objects housed in more than 80 museum, university, and private collections of ancient art and artifacts in North America, which represents perhaps 95% of the known material held here. USEP also provides up-to-date bibliographies (along with links to documents available online) for many of these texts. Its searchable database is both a powerful research tool as well as a training resource for a rising generation of epigraphists and art historians.

The following paper provides a basic orientation to the practical and intellectual advantages of digital humanities scholarship through the lens of this project’s development. In particular, it calls attention to new possibilities for engaging with epigraphic materials at multiple levels of academic inquiry. First, with respect to individual examples, digital encoding practices disambiguate information about the components of a given inscription in a manner that forces the scholar to consider each of them seriously without relying on categorical assumptions. This exercise results in a subtler account of an object’s complex components that moves beyond conventional generalizations about, for instance, the relationship between the intention of a text and the type of object that bears the inscription. It also pinpoints where interpretive ambiguities occur and necessarily explicates editorial decisions. Second, while a single datum, or even a sizeable collection of texts, may offer limited contributions to the study of antiquity, the ability to examine unlimited types of relationships across multiple sets of materials increases the explanatory potential of such evidence for research questions about ancient societies. This is true not only with respect to the opportunity that digital resources offer to understand better the original context of texts that now reside in disparate modern collections – a point to which we will return using the example of material originating from the Via Salaria necropolis in Rome. It is also true for broader patterns in epigraphic evidence that exceed the immediate frames of reference for a specific object or set of objects (namely, commemorative practices from a certain historical period, as opposed to relationships between monuments from the same archaeological site). Finally, USEP’s participation in an EpiDoc peer community holds the potential to demonstrate affinities not only between texts represented in federated collections of epigraphic materials, but also to compare epigraphic data points to other forms of ancient evidence (e.g., manuscripts and papyri) encoded using the same conventions. The ability to consider so many types of material from antiquity, and with such specificity, augments the importance of even the most insular datum, irrespective of the medium on which it survives.

166 Lisa Anderson and Heidi Wendt

EpiDoc XML, Metadata, and Controlled VocabulariesIn order to appreciate how each of these larger points is borne out by digital encoding practices, we will begin with a basic orientation to the language and methods that define text encoding as part of the digital humanities and our EpiDoc peer community specifically.

XML stands for eXtensible Markup Language, a flexible language that can be used to encode or “mark up” texts in order to enrich the information that can be adduced from and made available about them. For those unfamiliar with XML, it describes a process whereby users add descriptive information to a text by demarcating it using a set of predefined extensible tags. The names and relationships among the tags are defined by a schema, and the semantics of the tags are defined primarily by community practice and guidelines. XML is not limited in its encoding possibilities by existing encoding “tag sets,” as other programming languages are limited, but can develop and vary its encoding vocabulary as necessary. In 2005, when USEP moved its data to an XML format, the encoding process followed, in general, the conventions of the EpiDoc project, which was adapting the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) XML schema (www.tei-c.org) to work with inscribed documentary texts. EpiDoc (http://epidoc.sourceforge.net/) was spearheaded by Tom Elliot, then at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Charlotte Roueché of King’s College, London. The focus of the components that EpiDoc adapted from the TEI is mostly on the encoding of text from manuscripts, and it has not always been simple to adapt TEI, which has the richest metadata developed for texts on paper, accurately for the representation and description of texts on non-paper materials. Many online epigraphic projects use some form of EpiDoc to encode their inscriptions because it provides a starting point for new projects and makes data more consistent (which may lead to federated searching). For example, the Electronic Archive of Greek and Latin Epigraphy (EAGLE) can search texts in the major databases of the Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg (EDH), Epigraphic Database Roma (EDR), Epigraphic Database Bari (EDB), and Hispania Epigraphica (HE) (http://www.eagle-eagle.it). In addition, the fields of numismatics and sigillography have recently shown interest in developing search capabilities of this kind, and there is a similar trend in papyrology (e.g., the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri, among others).While one of the great benefits of XML is its adaptability to any particular project, standard tags and encoding practices are necessary for different databases of ancient texts to be able to access the information stored in others. Most EpiDoc-based projects have focused on the encoding of text transcriptions, and indeed most EpiDoc conventions deal with text issues. The thought processes that develop encoding practices are often informed


by the highly sophisticated and standardized editorial practices that scholars have used to represent various textual features – disparities in letter size, stylistic flourishes, scribal errors or corrections, and so forth – that would not be apparent in a simple transcription. Beyond these sorts of features, as with a standard print epigraphic edition, encoding a text with EpiDoc also allows one to expand abbreviations, to supply missing text, to indicate the certainty of the reconstruction, and most recently, to tag details of interest beyond the immediate inscription, such as prosopographical data. A “person” tag, for instance, can capture the complete name of an individual mentioned in an inscription, as well as the specific elements that comprise this name, such as, for Roman names, the praenomen, nomen gentilicium, cognomen, filiation or libertination, and sometimes tribal membership. The marked-up epitaph of Philargyrus, who was the slave of a Lucius Sulla, illustrates many of these features (Figure 9.1). This inscription, identified in USEP as MI.AA.UM.KM.L.1428, was found in the Porta Salaria necropolis of Rome and is currently part of the collection of the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology in Ann Arbor, Michigan. We will discuss our classification system and the Porta Salaria necropolis further below, but first let us look at an example of a marked-up text.

<persName key=“PhilargyrusSullae”> <name type=“cognomen” key=“Philargyrus”>Philargyrus</name> <name type=“praenomen” key=“Lucius”> <expan><abbr>L</abbr><ex>ucii</ex></expan></name> <name type=“gentilicium” key=“Sulla”>Sullae</name></persName> <expan><abbr>horre<hi rend=“apex”>a</hi>r</abbr><ex>ius</ex></expan> <expan><abbr>vix</abbr><ex>it</ex></expan> <expan><abbr>an</abbr><ex>nis</ex></expan> <num value=“25”>XXV</num>

Figure 9.1. The epitaph of Philargyrus L. Sullae (MI.AA.UM.KM.L.1428).


<ab type=“translation”>Philargyrus, slave of Lucius Sulla, private granary keeper. He lived 25 years. </ab>

A computer will not display the text tags – they are only for classifying the information available in the inscription and supplied by the editor. The marked-up text will show only the text supplied between the tags:

Philargyrus L(ucius) Sullae horreár(ius) vix(it) an(nis) XXV

Here the “person” is understood to be “Philargyrus L. Sullae.” Other inscriptions that name this Philargyrus can be linked to the “person” tag’s unique key attribute “PhilargyrusSullae.” The elements of his name and of his master’s name, Lucius Sulla, are also tagged to indicate their presence in the inscription and can be searched to find other slaves in the possession of the same owner. Key attributes in the nominative are added to each name element in order to standardize the lists for searching, i.e., the computer will search for “Lucius” rather than “L” (the standard abbreviation) or “Lucii” (the genitive form) in order to find all instances of this particular praenomen. While the “person” tag itself allows for the connection of all inscriptions that mention the same individual, the separate components isolate occurrences of name elements that may indicate family relationships, slave ownership patterns, ethnicity, and other social information. Although USEP complies with EpiDoc editing practices as it adds transcriptions of Latin texts to its database, the main information provided by the project has always been so-called metadata rather than transcriptions. For example, the entry in the Checklist for the same inscription is as follows:

Marble columbarium slab, Porta Salaria (mid I) epitaph of Philargyrus L. Sullae, horrearius Sheldon, LIKMDennison 119–20 no. 92, Pl. 17 (ph) MI.AA.UM.KM.L.1428

The Checklist provided very brief information for each inscription following a set pattern. In the example of the columbarium slab of Philargyrus L. Sullae, the entry includes a description of the object shape (broken stele), material (marble), date (mid-first century A.D.), findspot (Porta Salaria), type of inscription (epitaph), name or names of the subject or subjects (Philargyrus L. Sullae) and perhaps occupation (horrearius), publication history and whether a photo appears in the publication (relatively rare in early epigraphic publications), and a unique number assigned to each inscription by the project. Publication references from non-canonical volumes are given abbreviations that often combined the name of the author with that of


the publication, since authors of works on epigraphy often have multiple publications, even in a single year. The list of abbreviations appears in the Checklist. The inscription used as an example here has been published by R.M. Sheldon (in Baldwin and Torelli 1979: 119–120, no. 92) and more recently by Tuck (2005: 197, no. 335). The USEP numbers are formed by aggregating current geographic information from general to specific: in the case of MI.AA.UM.KM.L.1428, the inscription is in Michigan, in the city of Ann Arbor, in the University of Michigan’s Kelsey Museum collection, it is in Latin, and 1428 is the museum’s accession number for the object. Although sparse, the highlighting of the non-textual information or metadata available for each inscription in the Checklist was a departure from canonical epigraphic volumes like the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL 1853–present, http://cil.bbaw.de/) or the Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ILS, 1892–1916), which do not prioritize such details. To an even greater extent than the Checklist was able, USEP tried to represent a complete snapshot of items in U.S. collections and to start doing more in-depth description, adding texts and perhaps ultimately historical and textual commentary.

Because USEP was concerned almost exclusively with metadata over text, this meant that more of the tag set in the TEI conventions needed to be adapted for use in USEP, which could then help set the standard for metadata in EpiDoc. When the TEI upgraded its conventions from its fourth version (P4) to its fifth version (P5) in 2007, USEP was a leader in adapting TEI P5 tag sets and controlled vocabulary for use in describing inscriptions. Our revised metadata scheme was subsequently circulated throughout the EpiDoc community and forms the basis for sections of the TEI P5-compliant EpiDoc schema. Types of metadata that USEP has concentrated on include dates, materials, types of inscriptions, and object forms. We use a hierarchical controlled vocabulary to encode the objects in order to make them more easily searchable and also to highlight more clearly the connections that can be made amongst various objects. Developing this hierarchy exemplified some of the intellectual reorientation that such a minute parsing of text information encourages. Developing controlled vocabulary to make decorative elements easily describable and searchable remains a desideratum of the project. Due to the large variety of decorative elements on inscribed objects, it has been difficult to develop a logical but flexible hierarchical scheme of classification. Going forward, the standards set by the Getty Vocabulary Program may help with this problem (see the Getty Research Institute’s Art and Architecture thesaurus: http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/; Harpring 2010). In any case, whereas print publications tend to categorize epigraphic texts thematically (e.g., as funerary inscriptions), the process of describing


an inscription using the categories that we devised parses the inscription into various parts, from the text itself to other kinds of information present in the object, such as material or object type. An object’s material properties can perhaps tell us about the origin of the inscription (through the location of the marble quarry), its date (certain materials were used in specific periods), or even the relative status of the object (depending on the scarcity of the material). Its type can tell us something about how it was used or where it was placed in antiquity (a columbarium marker, for instance, would only be used in a columbarium and would by definition be funerary in nature). Perhaps the most fruitful distinction that we make is between inscription type, which is the category of text without reference to the type of object or the manner of writing, and the object type, which refers specifically to the object onto or into which a text is inscribed or imprinted. Although the relationship between these two fields may seem self-evident, our separation of the intention of the text (the inscription type) from the object type challenges modern assumptions about such relationships in light of the variability of the texts, the patrons, and the original contexts (e.g., an epitaph carved into a building wall, an agonistic text carved upon a tomb slab, and so on). Our controlled vocabulary also specifies an object’s constitutive materials and the type of writing that produced its text, the latter of which is useful for identifying specific styles, manners, and tools of writing (e.g., impressed, protruding, painted, inset, and subsets thereof ). We pair these controlled vocabularies with free text “glosses” that allow an epigraphist to take advantage of the power and standardization of the controlled vocabularies, but also to provide more individual detail about a feature, which will appear when the full description of an object is displayed. While a human being can read a paragraph of information and make connections, understand if a known person/object is being discussed, or if it is someone or something entirely new, a computer cannot do so on its own. By adding in all of that information, categorizing every name element, every individual, every piece of decoration, etc., in a known way with controlled vocabularies, we can research the data more effectively. The scope can be as broad or as narrow as we need (all inscriptions in Europe vs. all inscriptions from Porta Salaria), although narrower slices of data throw into relief the sorts of textual ambiguities and problematic categories that we have indicated. The inscription of Philargyrus L. Sullae provides further examples of how markup renders individual items more searchable and easier to classify into groups. In the description of the inscription itself (msContents), the inscription type can be noted as well as the language or, in the case of bilingual inscriptions, languages used. Note that the main tag for describing the intent of the inscription stands for “manuscript contents,” due to the TEI’s focus


on manuscripts when developing its tag set. USEP uses these TEI tags that, at first glance, seem inappropriate to describe inscribed objects, because the intent is similar to what is needed for inscriptions and because keeping the tag name aids in cross-searching of data sets. Several aspects of the physical description (physDesc) of the inscribed object can be detailed, including the type of object (objectDesc) and material (supportDesc), which can be further subdivided to provide more specific information about the material (here, gray marble), dimensions and units of measurement, the number of lines on the surface, and details about the decorative elements or lack thereof. As with the “person” example above, the computer uses the tags to search and classify each marked-up section, but it only displays the free-text glosses typed between the elements, with the arrangement and display of each part on a web browser determined by style sheets.

<msContents> <textLang mainLang=“lat” otherLangs=””>Latin</textLang> <msItem class=“#funerary.epitaph”> <p>Epitaph of Philargyrus L. Sullae</p> </msItem></msContents><physDesc> <objectDesc ana=“#tablet”> <supportDesc ana=“#stone.marble”> <support> <seg type=“material”>The material is gray marble.</seg> <dimensions type=“surface” unit=“m”> <height>0.15</height> <width>0.028</width> <depth>0.04</depth> </dimensions> </support> </supportDesc> <layoutDesc> <layout columns=“1” writtenLines=“3”>The text is in three lines, one

column.</layout> </layoutDesc> </objectDesc> <decoDesc> <decoNote type=“ansata”> <p>The inscription is within a tabula ansata.</p> </decoNote> </decoDesc></physDesc>


The history of an object includes information about its provenance and date. The standardized place reference (europe.italy.rome) allows for hierarchical searching from most general (Europe) to most specific (Porta Salaria cemetery). The number attributes in the date tag are essential for browsing date ranges of multiple objects. One can combine a search of provenance and date to see when a cemetery was in use; a search of family name, date, and place will indicate when a family group made use of a place.

<history> <summary> <note>Excavated from the Porta Salaria necropolis in Rome.</note> </summary> <origin> <date notBefore=“0025” notAfter=“0075”> mid first century CE</date> </origin> <provenance> <placeName ref=“europe.italy.rome.salaria”>Porta Salaria, Rome, Italy</

placeName> </provenance></history>

One of the most valuable implications of this careful indexing is that our data are now separated into several classificatory facets. With the incorporation of powerful faceted browsing capabilities in the design of our site, users are able to tailor their searches and investigate multiple relationships between objects and epigraphic texts. Most importantly, these relationships will be apparent in different collections, which can foster comparative academic work and stimulate dialogue between scholars and collection curators. To the extent that a large proportion of epigraphic material held in the United States shares a common provenance – Rome’s Porta Salaria cemetery region – the ability to engage with these objects digitally as a related group is invaluable for any number of intellectual projects. The shared genealogy of epigraphic materials in U.S. collections is presently under-appreciated, and the capabilities of our site, including our image repository, will allow for virtual approximations of their original context.

“Re-placing” the Porta Salaria Necropolis InscriptionsThe digital capabilities we have outlined above have even greater repercussions with respect to investigating multiple relationships across aggregate data sets. While one might use nuanced browsing to isolate patterns of specific epigraphic or object features, our encoding practices also allow the reunion of objects that were found together and subsequently separated into


different collections. For instance, in our database of approximately 3,000 objects, around 650 found their way into U.S. collections from a specific archaeological area, the Porta Salaria necropolis in Rome, Italy.

The Porta Salaria necropolis was discovered outside of Rome’s Aurelian Gate around the end of the nineteenth century and was excavated through the beginning of the twentieth century (Bodel 1992; Egbert 1908: 263–264). Approximately 2,500 inscriptions and tombs, still in their original archaeological context, were unearthed during the residential development of the area over several years. A hasty but professional excavation of the site generated a number of new epigraphic publications and inundated the antiquities market with related objects that were then parceled out to disparate locations. Concurrently, a number of important American antiquities collections were being formed, with the result that about one-fifth of these inscriptions were acquired by institutions such as the Speed Art Museum (Louisville, Kentucky), the Sackler Museum collections of Harvard Art Museums (Cambridge, Massachusetts), the Smith College Department of Classical Languages and Literatures and the Museum of Art (Northampton, Massachusetts), the University of Michigan’s Kelsey Museum (Ann Arbor, Michigan), the Johns Hopkins University Archaeological Museum (Baltimore, Maryland), Columbia University’s Rare Book and Manuscript Room of the Butler Library (New York, New York), and New York University’s Department of Classics (New York, New York). In the Speed Art Museum alone there are over 550 inscriptions from the Porta Salaria necropolis (Gigante 2008), all of which are illustrated on USEP’s website.

When the Porta Salaria inscriptions were first uncovered, transcriptions and short descriptions of their texts were recorded, although not systematically, in CIL VI and several editions of Notizie degli Scavi (NSc). After this the inscriptions were dispersed, and unless they were subsequently published, no other easily locatable information indicated their object histories or present whereabouts. Distributed in small, often inaccessible groups throughout the country, they can seldom be seen, let alone examined, except in isolated and often unfavorable circumstances. Much of the inscribed material held in American collections has not been properly studied, and many of these pieces now lie buried in the storerooms of these same museum and university collections. While this problem obtains for epigraphic materials in the U.S. writ large, it is especially striking for the scattered Porta Salaria materials, to the extent that they share a common provenance and could be studied profitably in the fashion of in situ monument groups like the Isola Sacra cemetery near Ostia (Hope 2007) or the clusters of funerary monuments at Pompeii (Koortbojian 1996).

We are now able to begin to bring these items together again, albeit virtually, and more work can be done to study them as forming part of a shared original context. As Linda Gigante (2008: 29 n. 8) indicates, it would be helpful to


compile a complete inventory of all items originally from the Porta Salaria necropolis. The paths of dispersal of the Porta Salaria materials are also pertinent to analyses of American antiquities collecting and alert us to items that may have been lost completely. For instance, Gigante (2008: 28 n. 3, 31 n. 11) lists several inscriptions published in CIL that remain unaccounted for – they might have been sold or possibly left in Italy, but are presently undocumented. In addition to the studies that could be done with the transcriptions that appeared in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, we can now begin to formulate questions about trends in materials, decorative elements, and even the hands of carvers, inquiries that are enriched further by the access that USEP provides to images of its objects. These, in turn, can tell us more about the people who used the necropolis, how it was used, and the carvers whose inscriptions are now all that remain of the cemetery. New research trajectories hold promise not only for the relationship between monuments whose spatial relationships can be approximated (particularly texts that were viewed contemporaneously, in roughly the same topographical location), but in some cases even within the bounded context of a single monument. For example, the Speed Art Museum houses the complete inventory of texts from a single columbarium excavated from the Porta Salaria area.

Collaborative WorkA project like the USEP makes several intellectual contributions, not the least of which is training a new generation of epigraphists who make explicit, critical editorial and classificatory decisions as they encode epigraphic materials. Projects like USEP and EpiDoc are necessarily collaborative in nature, bringing together a wide range of scholars from the humanities and computer science, none of whom could accomplish this sort of work without collaborators from other fields. EpiDoc has set the standard in the development of markup projects of other ancient text-bearing objects, such as papyri (e.g., http://papyri.info/) and coins. Feedback from USEP resulted in refinements and improvements to The Chapel Hill Electronic Text Converter (CHET-C: http://eds.library.brown.edu/projects/chet-c/chetc.html), which Hugh Cayless (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) developed to take texts that have been marked up with the standard Leiden epigraphic diacritical marks and convert them into EpiDoc-compliant XML files that can be combined with the existing XML file for a particular inscription. The encoding standards and vocabularies that the digital humanities community works to implement facilitate the coordination of numerous collections and databases of materials ranging from inscribed objects to


manuscripts and papyri. When viewed in isolation these forms of evidence reveal relatively modest amounts of information about antiquity, but digital, corpus-based approaches can greatly expand the implications of even a single datum. In other words, although specific items offer some value on their own, a far greater value emerges from the quantity of evidence that digital corpora are able to collate and then make available for comparison and analysis.

AcknowledgmentsThe content of this paper was reviewed and commented upon usefully by Elli Mylonas of the Brown University Library’s Center for Digital Scholarship, to whom we are both indebted in every aspect of the USEP’s development.

ReferencesBaldwin, Martha W., and Mario Torelli (editors) 1979 Latin Inscriptions in the Kelsey Museum: The Dennison Collection. Kelsey Museum

Studies Vol. 4. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Bodel, John 1992 Thirteen Latin Funerary Inscriptions at Harvard University. American Journal of

Archaeology 96.1: 71–100.Bodel, John, and Stephen Tracy 1997 Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the USA: A Checklist. American Academy in Rome,

New York.Egbert, James C. 1908 Inscriptions of Rome and Central Italy. Supplementary Papers of the American School

of Classical Studies in Rome 2: 263–290.Gigante, Linda M. 2008 A Collection of Inscriptions from the Via Salaria Necropolis Now in the Speed

Art Museum, Louisville, Kentucky. Memoirs of the American Academy at Rome 53: 27–78.

Harpring, Patricia 2010 Introduction to Controlled Vocabularies: Terminology for Art, Architecture, and Other

Cultural Works. Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles.Hope, Valerie 2007 Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook. Routledge, London.Koortbojian, Michael 1996 In Commemorationem Mortuorum: Text and Image along the “Street of Tombs.”

In Art and Text in Roman Culture, edited by Jaś Elsner, pp. 210–234. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Tuck, Steven 2005 Latin Inscriptions in the Kelsey Museum: The Dennison and De Criscio Collections.

Kelsey Museum Studies Vol. 9. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

"Ancient Relationships, Modern Intellectual Horizons: The Practical Challenges and Possibilities of...

Documents

Transcript of "Ancient Relationships, Modern Intellectual Horizons: The Practical Challenges and Possibilities of...